Moore Gabriel, Redman Sally, D'Este Catherine, Makkar Steve, Turner Tari
School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
The Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 28;6(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0.
Rapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review's purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers. To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal).
We asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering. Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review's purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers' confidence that they could meet policy makers' needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review.
The results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers' needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains.
This study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers' needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs.
快速综述越来越多地被用于帮助政策制定者在短时间内获取研究成果。清晰地阐述综述的目的、问题、范围、方法和报告格式被认为有助于提高综述结果的质量和可推广性。本研究的目的是从潜在审稿人的角度探讨知识中介在提高快速综述提案清晰度方面的有效性。为开展本研究，我们借鉴了“证据核查”项目，即政策制定者起草一份综述提案（知识中介介入前的提案），并与知识中介进行1小时的交流，知识中介根据讨论结果重新起草提案（知识中介介入后的提案）。
我们邀请30位曾参与“证据核查”综述的审稿人评估60份知识中介介入前和60份知识中介介入后的提案质量。审稿人对所收到的综述提案是知识中介介入前还是介入后并不知情。审稿人使用六点李克特量表对六个问题进行评分，这些问题涉及综述目的、问题、范围、方法和格式信息的清晰度，以及审稿人对能否满足政策制定者需求的信心。每位审稿人从60份综述中随机抽取两份知识中介介入前和两份知识中介介入后的提案，确保没有审稿人收到来自同一综述的知识中介介入前和介入后的提案。
结果显示，知识中介显著提高了所有六个关于综述提案清晰度及满足政策制定者需求信心问题的得分；六个领域从知识中介介入前到介入后的平均变化为0.68至1.23。
本研究发现，知识中介提高了“证据核查”快速综述提案中所提供信息的清晰度，以及审稿人认为自己能够满足政策制定者需求的信心。需要进一步研究以确定知识中介过程是如何实现这些改进的，并测试这些结果在其他快速综述项目中的适用性。
